Some notes from the breakout about the Future of the Enterprise 2.0 Manager Role #e20s

I thought I'd share some of my notes about the breakout and continued discussion we had about the role of the Enterprise 2.0 Manager, now and in the future. The discussion started where we left off after Cordelia presented her vision on this role. One of the main discussion points was whether we will need a e2.0 manager in the future organization (organization 2.0, as Cordelia called it).

The notes and statements are not my own, but are a collection of what we shared in our breakout.

When 2.0 principles are pervasive in the organization we don’t need the e2.0 champion. But doesn’t it depend on the type of organization? Does it change all organizations fundamentally? Does it apply to all businesses?

Transparency and externalization are business trends. E2.0 tools give the company a means to relate to these trends.

Organizational levels and structures will continue to exist, but there importance will change.

There will always be a tension between the human side and the capital market side of organizations (leading to hierarchy, control, shareholder importance).

E2.0 brings us back to what organizations used to be: a collections of humans with a certain goal. So humans are important (again).

A survey says employees leave the company because of their boss in 70% of the cases.

Do people do what is good by themselves, can the organization always organize themselves?

E.g. not all people blog or tweet about their work. Why not? Do we really all want to be an intrapeneur?

We are coming to except a human as a human. Both is true: there are entrepeneurs/automonous thinking people and people that are not geared this way and are happy as it is.

We lost some of the humanity of business (more and more pressure, also at school). But we’re learning the importance of humans for the company. There will be more and more focus on the human. Collaboration will become integral, but the focus on the human will need to be paid attention to.

E2.0 leads to a people-centric organization (Org. 2.0). The e2.0 manager should lead to the Org. 2.0.

When we talk about people-centric, as HR, we mean the company maintains the talent pool so we achieve goals as a company. So, getting the best out of people.

Give people passion back, is that the core of e2.0?

For the jump from the Introduction to the more Professional set up (refer to Cordelia's slides) we need a longer-term vision (BASF). Which is the chart leading to Org. 2.0. Other change in corporate culture is addressed.

In sum:

There clearly is a movement towards a new type of organization: people focus. Social tools are one of the things contributing to it.

These tools allow the company to become more collaborative, contribute more. This will become more primary.

The e2.0 manager facilitates this movement. The more collaborative an organization is the less need there is for champions. In any case the role will be a more consulting than management or champion role.

Popular posts

This tweet by Jonathan Phillips (@digitaljonathan) triggered to finalize this post, that's been burning in my draft box.
I've always been intrigued by how unsuccessful many intranets are. And there are all kinds of good reasons for intranet failure. One of the things that is hardly ever mentioned is: Shouldn't the intranet be smaller?
Usually intranets are huge. Lots and lots of pages with lots and lots of content. With complex navigation. The intranet evaluation surveys almost always show employees only use the news page and people finder. But still we build and maintain nice big intranets.

Not only stats point to smaller intranets. There are others reasons as well. I came up with a few. If you have more, just leave a comment. Here's my list:

-user requirements: users don't require large intranet -search/navigation: searching and navigating a small intranet is easier than in a large intranet -mobile: the content of the intranet is easier to take with you on mobile d…

There's not too much fundamental research on Enterprise 2.0. Deloitte recently published interesting research done on enterprise 2.0 implementations and their return-on-investment. In the EU research has also done as well. Study is being done for the European Commission and it was carried out by Tech4i2, IDC and Headshift. What was the goal of the study?Goals of the studyTo provide a clear definition of Enterprise 2.0 is, describe the market and the positioning of EU industry, also in comparison with US and Asia;To analyze the take-up of Enterprise 2.0, the organizational requirements, and the role on the transition to a knowledge based low-carbon economy;To collect evidence on its macro-economic impact, as a market opportunity for the European Software industry and as a productivity tool for European business;To identify and analyse both the direct and contextual challenges, including the need for Next Generation Access and the legal barriers;To analyse and propose possible poli…

I love reading articles about innovation. And every now and then you read one that is very interesting. "Innovation in Turbulent Times" by Rigby, Gruver, Allen (in HBR, June 2009) is one of them.This article takes fashion companies as an example for continuous, year-by-year innovation. And how successful fashion companies are usually led by two people: a left-brainer and a right-brainer. "If you don't have highly creative people in positions of real authority, you won't get innovation. Most companies in other industries ignore this lesson."They extend this to show that successful non-fashion companies have the same kind of leadership. And this kind of leadership is usually also characterized by a long-term relationship.I think this concept can also be extended to teams and projects as well. More often than not, people are good at one or the other: thinking up great concepts or ideas, or, making them. In teams and projects we can learn from this as well, an…